Armenian News

IWPR

AZERI VISIT TO KARABAKH SPARKS ROW
War of words breaks out as public relations exercise by Baku representatives goes wrong.
By Samira Ahmedbeili in Baku, Sara Khojoian in Yerevan and Anahit Danielian in Stepanakert

A visit by Azerbaijani officials and cultural leaders to the self-declared state of Nagorno-Karabakh was

intended to build ties with its ethnic Armenian rulers, but degenerated into the usual verbal sparring within

days.

However, analysts were wrong-footed by an unusually conciliatory statement from Azerbaijan's president

Ilham Aliev after the trip, in which he appeared sympathetic to some Armenian demands.

Nagorny Karabakh, ruled by Armenians but internationally considered part of Azerbaijan, has been a

block to good relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan since Soviet times.

More than a million refugees fled out of both countries before and during the war, which started in 1991

and ended with a ceasefire three years later. Since then, there have been almost no ties between the

two neighbouring nations, while Karabakh declared independence unilaterally.

Armenian forces control some 14 per cent of what Azerbaijan considers to be its territory, and

exchanges of fire are frequent over the line of control.

The visit to Karabakh, which started on July 3 and was headed by the ambassadors to Moscow of

both Armenia and Azerbaijan, was intended to help ease the tensions.

"I want to stress that neither Armenians nor Azeris are going to fly off into space. We must live together,

and therefore we need to create contacts, joint ties, create mutual respect between each other," Polad

Bulbuloglu, the Azerbaijan ambassador, told reporters in Karabakh.

But, even before he left the region, he had succeeded in offending the locals by following the terminology

used in Azerbaijan to describe Karabakh. He met Bako Sahakian, leader of the self-proclaimed state,

but presented it as just a meeting with local civil society figures, outraging political commentator David

Babian.

"It is unacceptable that non-constructive statements should be made after a visit, as was done by this

Polad Bulbuloglu and his delegates. President Bako Sahakian from the start of the visit held onto the

principal of equality of the two sides, stressing that no other format was acceptable, including the

so-called possibility of holding talks between two communities," the commentator said.

"Such meetings are ineffective, since they once more make people angry, instead of creating an

atmosphere of trust, as the authors insist."

The misunderstandings pursued the delegates, who also visited Yerevan and Baku, throughout their

journey. On returning to the Azerbaijani capital, one delegate told a local news agency that the

Armenian president had told them he understood that Aghdam - a region of Azerbaijan outside

Nagorny Karabakh itself which is almost entirely controlled by Armenian forces - was not Armenian

land, and that he respected Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.

The comments were disowned by a spokesman for the president, and provoked outrage in Yerevan.

"This is an arrogant lie," President Serzh Sargsian's spokesman said. "But we are no longer surprised

that the Azerbaijani delegates distorted the facts when they returned to Baku, since they always do.

The lack of tolerance from Azerbaijani society is clear."

Similar distrust was sparked in Baku, where the supposed peacemakers found themselves suspected

of selling out the interests of their country. Any suggestion that Karabakh is not actually part of

Azerbaijan meets fury in Baku, and Akif Nagi, head of the Organisation for the Liberation of Karabakh,

suggested that by meeting Sahakian, the delegates were effectively recognising his rule.

"As a result of such meetings the fact of the Armenian seizure of Azerbaijan's territory retreats into the

background. By making a statement. about visiting Karabakh through Azerbaijan's territory, they present

this as if it's heroism. But if you meet the head of a separatist, puppet regime, and basically recognise

his legitimacy, then it is unimportant how you got there," Nagi said.

He also expressed disquiet that the delegation had included Mikhail Shvidkoy, the head of the Russian

Cultural Agency, and appeared to have been initiated in Moscow. "The visit of the so-called Azerbaijan

intelligentsia to Karabakh contradicts the interests of Azerbaijan. This visit was conducted at the orders

of Russia. Russia is just demonstrating that the Karabakh conflict is completely under its control and that

it can make the two sides play by its rules any time it wants," he said.

Under the circumstances, therefore, it was not surprising that few observers expected positive results

from the trip. However, comments from President Aliev to Russian television after the visit suggested a

change of heart in Baku, which has previously been uncompromising in its opposition to any recognition

of Armenian rights to Azerbaijan's territory.

"As for the status of Nagorny Karabakh, that is a question of the future. A resolution of its status is not

one of the proposals accepted by us and under discussion at the moment," Aliev told Russia's RTR

television.

"Of course, Azerbaijan will never agree to the independence of Nagorny Karabakh. I think Armenia

understands this. Today we must resolve the results of the conflict and secure an end of the occupation.

The security of all nationalities in Karabakh must be secured, after which communication must be

restored. We understand that Nagorny Karabakh must have a special status, and we see it as being

within Azerbaijan."

Despite Aliev's uncompromising refusal to countenance independence for the region, those were still

remarkably conciliatory remarks by the standards Baku has set since 1991.

"Over the last month there has been a flurry of activity in the Karabakh negotiations: an intense round

of diplomacy, the visit of the intellectuals to Karabakh and the first visit by Armenians to Baku in a long

time, [and] a more positive tone from many of the political leaders," said Tom de Waal, an analyst from

the NGO Conciliation Resources and an expert in Karabakh's history.

"President Aliev adopted a more moderate tone than I can remember in an interview on the Karabakh

issue. I was struck by the way he said that 'we understand the concerns of the people of Karabakh' and

that he said that the status of Karabakh is a 'matter for the future'. Now of course this was an interview

to Russian television. I think things will really change only when the presidents say this kind of thing to a

domestic audience, but it is a very positive signal."

Samira Ahmedbeili, Sara Khojoian and Anahit Danielian are IWPR contributors.

AGOS Weekly Turkish Armenian Newspaper

Stop jerking us around

It has been two and a half years since the murder of Hrant Dink, the founder of our newspaper. The

10th hearing of the trial will be held on 6 July, Monday. We have reached a point where the ‘deep’

will preventing the exposure of the powers behind the murder has managed to block the legal process

of the trial. It has proven impossible to bring the officials who were responsible for the murder or who

acted negligently in the process leading up to it to stand before the court. If, as claimed, the culprits

were only Samast, Hayal, Tuncel and their friends, then the case should have ended long ago.

However, it is clear that, fearing the reaction of the public, the court prefers to extend the case and

stretch out the process. This blockage can only be overcome if the court and the state fulfill their duty

and make the necessary effort to find those responsible.

Charges have not been brought against any of the public officials who were shown, in the reports of

the Prime Ministry Inspection Board or civil inspectors, to be responsible and negligent. Ramazan

Akyürek, the Trabzon Chief Constable at the time of the murder, was promoted to the Head of the

Intelligence Department, making it impossible to illuminate the dark areas of the case. Police officer

Muhittin Zenit, who was aware of all the details of the murder during the telephone call he made with

Erhan Tuncel half an hour after the assassination, was promoted to a position under Akyürek. The

questioning of Colonel Ali Öz was delayed until 18 months after the murder, by which point the

Colonel said he couldn’t remember many details. Celalettin Cerrah, Istanbul Chief of Police and

head of all the officials of the Istanbul Police who, according to the report of the civil inspectors,

“shared responsibility in the murder from the lowest to the highest level,” was appointed Mayor of

Osmaniye. Ahmet İlhan Güler, Istanbul Police Intelligence Department Head, escaped examination

on appeal even though civil inspectors had originally issued permission for him to be examined.

He, too, was appointed to a different post. Ali Fuat Yılmazer, Trabzon Police C Branch Director,

against whom the Prime Ministry Inspection Board report demanded a prior review, was appointed

Istanbul Police Intelligence Branch Head. MIT (National Intelligence Organization) officer Ö.Y.,

allegedly among those who threatened Dink at a meeting at the Istanbul Governorship, was

appointed to İzmir and promoted. At every turn, the requests of lawyers regarding these individuals

were refused by the court or rendered inconclusive because of the officials efforts to cover up the event.

The case drags on and on, but in fact, until necessary action is taken to expose the powers behind

those currently accused (currently accused are Ogün Samast, Yasin Hayal, Erhan Tuncel, Ahmet

İskender, Ersin Yolcu and their friends), the case effectively has not started. This will only extend the

psychological torture that we and especially the Dink family—who were subjected to racist attacks

by the accused and their lawyers throughout the hearings—have already suffered.

To have our consciences held captive like this, to be kept waiting this way, is unbearable for us.
Our hearts cannot take it. We have had enough. We can wait no longer.

ENGLISH ORIGINAL
PRESS RELEASE SENT TO TURKISH NEWSPAPERS 04 JULY 2009
GOMIDAS INSTITUTE, LONDON

Ara Sarafian: “Let's Discuss the Blue Book Face to Face”

On Friday 26th June 2009 Gomidas Institute released its uncensored edition of the 1916 British

Parliamentary Blue Book in Turkish translation. The launch was in Ankara.

A few days later, retired Turkish ambassador and chairman of the Institute for Armenian Research

in Ankara Omer Engin Lutem held a press conference, stating that this publication was part of a

change of strategy by advocates of Armenian Genocide claims. Mr. Lutem argued that now “the

Armenians” intensified their efforts to win over the Turks in Turkey and abroad to have them support

the Armenian theses and that they worked in close cooperation with many Turkish intellectuals to

this end. (Hurriyet, 1 July 2009).

I should say that I have been working in Turkey since the 1990s and enjoy good relations with many

Turkish intellectuals. Reaching out to Turkish audiences is part of a peaceful and democratic process:

Turkish audiences are intelligent enough to listen to alternative views, ask questions and make

informed judgments on critical issues. That is why Lord Avebury and I presented our views on the

Blue Book (and the Armenian Genocide) last Friday and invited questions from all quarters. As for

the recent interest shown by Turkish intellectuals in the Blue Book, which Mr. Lutem refers to as

suspicious “cooperation” with Armenians, such interest was triggered by TGNA and other

spokespersons of the Turkish theses which labeled the Blue Book a fabrication, nothing but a

collection of lies.

The Turkish edition of the Blue Book actually exposes the false claims the Grand National Assembly

made against the Blue Book in a letter to the British Parliament in 2005. The TGNA gave a false

account of the relevant published and archival sources underpinning the Blue Book. It denied the

existence of some key sources, gave misleading accounts of others, and introduced irrelevant issues.

Members of the British Parliament who examined and disagreed with the TGNA position made two

attempts to start a dialogue, but there was no response from Ankara. The Turkish edition of the

uncensored edition of the Blue Book was printed in Turkish so that those TGNA members who have

never seen this work, as well as Turkish audiences interested in the issue, could have access to

relevant materials and judge the Blue Book for themselves.

When the Turkish translation of the uncensored Blue Book was released in Ankara, the meeting

was open to all, including members of the Turkish press and the TGNA. The audience included

people who disparaged the Blue Book and they were allowed to speak. They raised points about

the current Armenian-Azeri conflict, the image of Turkish soldiers during WWI, and Ambassador

Morgenthau as the alleged source for the Blue Book. It would have been good to see members

of the TGNA, retired ambassadors and the head of ERAREN in the audience as well.

I am personally committed to open dialogue, which is why I came to launch the Blue Book in

Ankara and answer all questions from the audience. I wonder if any of my detractors, including

Omer Engin Lutem, would be willing to present and defend their views on the Blue Book in the

same manner? I would like to take this opportunity to invite Omer Engin Lutem and members

of the TGNA who drafted the TGNA petition to London to participate in a public meeting in Istanbul

to discuss their case against the Blue Book as a wartime fabrication.

[For more information about the 1916 British parliamentary report on the Armenian Genocide,

please contact info@gomidas.org or visit www.gomidas.org ]

CULTURE SUPPLEMENT

Three Armenian Monasteries being restored in North Iran:

click on http://riowang.blogspot.com/2008/11/armenian-monasteries-in-iran.html

AN ARMENIAN CANON ! - Hasmik Leyloyan

click on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX-6fv3kuJs&feature=related

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~